Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby hoi.polloi on Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:59 am

The only way I could prove to myself that Simon was a legit person and not an actor or agent was to meet him in person and weigh the possibility myself, using my real senses. I feel the same way about everyone here. I suggest they adopt a similar mentality.

Or you're going to fall for every Tom, Dick and Equinox claiming they are real.

If you don't want to be investigated, don't post dubious claims here and/or demand your every typed message is swallowed without a handy bag of salt.

I opt to post as little as possible. It's hard enough to distinguish whether someone isn't a jerk in real life, why "give up" and assume every Facebook name or CluesForum membership means a real person is behind it? It's idiocy.

I'm with Simon in this respect though: no real harm done if you do choose to believe in a sim. Unless perhaps they're a scammer and you want to give them your money.
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby simonshack on Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:58 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:The only way I could prove to myself that Simon was a legit person and not an actor or agent was to meet him in person and weigh the possibility myself, using my real senses.

Indeed, Hoi : our minds need ALL of our senses, combined, to make out a decent picture of any given individual.

Imho, one of the most useful things we (the two of us) have ever done is to have met face to face - and for a fairly long period of time. If we hadn't done so, there's a slight chance that the relentless divide-and-conquer tactics deployed over the years by the many clowns & shills may have had some effect in sowing mistrust, if not strife, between the two of us. We know better than that - since we've learned to know each other better. Simple as that.

Here's a recent, hilariously crude attack by one "derealium" (gotta love it ... a hodgepodge of derailing and delirium ?), apparently directed primarily against your persona - but ultimately not-so-subtly attempting to insinuate that "all of these Cluesforum folks are psychopaths"... <_<

derealium [January 11, 2014 - 11:18 pm]: Hey Ab, how about that psychopath called hoi polloi talking about you accepting sims?

derealium [January 11, 2014 - 11:36 pm]: How about that bastard Hoi Polloi, ab?

derealium [January 11, 2014 - 11:38 pm]: Clues forum deserves wrath. Wrong so many times, an awful forum. Hoi Polloi said that Ab deals with sims. Psychopaths indeed

derealium [January 11, 2014 - 11:40 pm]: @Dustyash: hoi polloi is a longwinded windbag and a SIM

derealium [January 11, 2014 - 11:41 pm]: @Videre Licet: I've wanted to sock Hoi in his throat for a long time now. He's a bastard ... -23-21.txt

Now, let this be perfectly clear: I mean to stir NO controversy between this forum and Ab's excellent blog and radio - - quite the contrary. I am looking for ways of how to deal expediently with the hordes of shills which infest - and are bound to keep infesting on a daily basis - both of our websites. This is just a pesky fact / annoyance we must face - and heaven knows I would much rather spend my time dealing with more interesting matters!

All I will state for now - as a unilateral pledge on my part - is the following principle (which hopefully may turn into a bilateral agreement between our two, like-minded websites): if anyone ever registers here at Cluesforum and starts calling Ab (or ANY regular Fakeologist member/ contributor) a "psychopath", "a bastard" - menacing physical abuse, or any such incensing speech - I will deem such a member unfit to participate in our forum and immediately cancel his/her/its account. As I see it, there can be no tolerance for such behavior, if both of our websites' founders and regulars are to uphold - over time - a proper level of civility and mutual respect for each other. Let us never forget: at the very top of the trolls' &shills' field manual, it is written: "Get them to fight with each other. Divide et impera".
Posts: 6616
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby sunshine05 on Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:49 pm

I agree, Ab should remove those posts immediately. It's not about censorship. The posts have absolutely no substance and add nothing to any meaningful discussion. I would remove them if they were posted on my site.
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:00 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby lux on Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:43 pm

JohnnySmithy wrote:If you are 72 I assume you might not know exactly how the internet works ...

[Derailing Room, here I come] B)

Dear JohnnySmithy,

Someone who is 72 years old would have been in their mid 30s during the late 1970s when personal computers exploded onto the marketplace and the age of computing-for-the-masses began. Many millions of people jumped onto the computer bandwagon during that era and are still with it today.

See these 2 guys ... ?


They are Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, the creators of the Unix operating system released back in 1970 (before you were born, I'm guessing). They are aged 71 and 73. D'ya think they know how the internet works? D'ya think maybe they first learned about computers in college along with millions of others at the same time?

Computers have been around since the 1940s (even before I was born).

The people who created the internet and the technology that supports it are now mostly over 70 years old so why would you assume that someone over 70 years old wouldn't know how the internet works?

I am in my mid 60s and have been using personal computers since the late 1970s when I was about 30 years old and taught myself programming in several languages, have used a number of operating systems and began using the internet before it was the internet and never stopped. Many millions of others of the same age did likewise during the same time frame and I currently know many others my age or older who use the internet daily. In fact I don't know anyone over 60 who does not use the internet daily (but I do know some under-30 guys who don't know how their own dick works, much less a computer).

So, please try to keep in mind that the "seniors" of the world have not been in a coma for fifty years with no awareness of any technology that has emerged during that period. Thanks. :P
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby Rudy Algera on Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:06 pm

Hello lux,
Rudy Algera here.
I am 72 and will be 73 at the end of this month. I don't know much about computers, I got my computer in the year 2000 I think. I simply spend much more time reading literature and trying to write stories and novels. Not all of us oldies are computer maniacs.
Rudy Algera
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby lux on Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:16 am

Thank you, Rudy. However my comment was directed at JohnnySmithy's ignorant ageist remark.
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby CTGal1011 on Tue Jan 14, 2014 5:17 pm

Getting the word out cannot be ageist. In fact, one of the best groups to send the September Clues' vids on YouTube to *is* older people. They have been lied to the LONGEST, about the largest number of things, and surely should be the most ticked off.

Ever tell your great aunt Helen something personal at an afternoon family reunion and vow her to secrecy?

By that evening, even your third cousin twice removed knows your business. Without the assistance of ANY computer.
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby lux on Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:16 pm

Say, I've got an idea. Let's have a contest to see who can miss my point the furthest.
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby Critical Mass on Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:22 pm

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the website but it features amongst its members a drunkard called 'Rolo'. Recently he joined an abysmal episode of the Charles Giuliani show and managed to expose several shills (though he himself didn't seem to notice).

'Ben' from NYC, a reformed ex-Jew (who IIRC first turned up on Mark Glenn's show's in 2011) claims to have been nearly hit by a torso falling from the towers (which missed him by 3 feet), smelt the burning bodies, been splattered by human body parts & had other eyewitness friends assassinated by the government.

'Stefanie' whose 'friends husband' died or some such.

This show is a classic example of how controlled the 'alternative' media is.

Key moments occur at 1hr 47 & 2hr 03 into the show.

The commenter 'Negentropic MK I' seems to also have noticed this nonsense & sounds like quite the fan of cluesforum.
So, let me ask this stuttering shill Ben from NYC (direct agent or useful ego/idiot the result is the same, ) who claims he or someone he knows got hit by 'body parts and a torso' whether this 'torso' was the KING KONG MAN or not, because THAT'S ALL we saw on TV as far as 'bodies' were concerned: 13 foot and even 21 foot animations 'jumping' out of 7 foot windows:
Critical Mass
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby JLapage on Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:50 pm

Here's a shill if I ever saw one.
Dmurphy25 talks about everything. There maybe some truths mixed with lies. But in particular he lies about where he was on 911. He says he declined a job for working in one of the towers (40th floor) and accepted one across the river in NJ on the water front where he (or someone else?) saw the plane hit the tower. He mentions the same BS in another of his videos on Youtube. Here's the link to the video: Fortunately the lie about 911 is in the first 5 minutes.

I also captured an exchange he had with another video viewer who may also be a shill. This second shill might be emphasizing the idea that the second tower was struck by a plane as the official narrative goes.
the stortford watch 1 day ago
sorry Dave but no one ever saw a plane hit the first Tower
Reply · 1

dmurphy25 22 hours ago
+the stortford watch

I didn't say that I did, I only saw the second plane coming in

Reference video:

the stortford watch 22 hours ago
+dmurphy25 sorry Dave you misunderstood me.... at 2.30 you said somebody saw a plane hit the first tower. .. nobody saw that ....

dmurphy25 20 hours ago
+the stortford watch

A secretary in our office ran in and said "A plane just hit the World Trade Centre" and we all ran outside... Now I don't know if she actually saw it hit or someone told her or something... I have no idea.

the stortford watch 20 hours ago
Dave your story is amazing and completely unbelievable really next you'll say you had a friend who saw the fake plane hit the Pentagon next you say the Towers just Tumble down into dust with nothing left when they catch fire Dave are you a Jesuit

dmurphy25 19 hours ago
+the stortford watch

My story is amazing and you wouldn't be the first to call me a liar, but then perhaps you will assume that I also lied to the reporter who contacted me for my story that appeared in my old local paper back in the UK

dmurphy25 19 hours ago
Not a Jesuit but I was a volunteer firefighter though

By the way this guy claims that he drinks his own urine for therapeutic purposes.
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby JLapage on Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:26 pm

Another gem found in the comment section of that same video:
ura soul 22 hours ago (edited)
thanks dave, i was also computer programming for bankers during 911 and our clients were in the towers. you might recall i asked if you were interested in helping with the ureka community / website. it's growing now and very much in alignment with many of your intentions.. so, i'm just re-minding you, you are invited there whenever you feel inspired to drop in! ;)

This type of language reminds me of the fake comments left by 'parents', ''friends and 'loved ones' of the vicsims of 911
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby Painterman on Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:35 pm

JLapage wrote:There maybe some truths mixed with lies.

There always are. The truths usually come out first - then, once the shill has your mind properly prepared, the lies emerge, and off you go into the ditch.

One familiar technique is for a debutante shill to pop up (usually telling an emotionally engaging backstory) with a "starter kit" of real whizbang info - often presented in the form of a startling exposé - covertly supplied to the shill by the very bad guys the shill is pretending to oppose. Then, after the shill has ingratiated himself in the scene (especially targeting the scene's main players), the misdirection begins.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ingratiation is a psychological technique in which an individual attempts to become more attractive or likeable to their target. This term was coined by social psychologist Edward E. Jones. This outcome can be achieved by using several methods:

Other enhancement is a method in which the ingratiator compliments the target individual.

Opinion conformity occurs when the ingratiator adopts and validates the attitudes and beliefs of the target individual.

Self-presentation is a technique in which the ingratiator emphasizes their own attributes in order to be seen positively in the eyes of the target individual.

Situation-specific behaviors involves the ingratiator finding out personal information about the target individual, and then using this information to gain their approval.

Favor doing is a method of seeming helpful and considerate to the target individual. This may also engender feelings of reciprocity between the ingratiator and target person.

Expression of humor is any event shared by the ingratiator with the target individual that is intended to be amusing to the target individual.

The subtler, cleverer ingratiators can take slow and patient work to remove from their hosts (as with a large tick on your dog, you don't just grab it and yank it out when you discover it). This is because such ingratiators - a.k.a. infiltrators, in this context - have often made themselves indispensable, including emotionally, to their targets. So, as with dependency and addiction, a host will often fiercely oppose your efforts, even your concerned council, to dislodge their destructive parasite.
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:02 pm


Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests